Westfield Town Council rejects relaxed rules on electronic message boards

WESTFIELD — The City Council voted overwhelmingly last week against a proposal to relax permit requirements for electronic message signs.

The measure was recommended by both the planning board and the board’s zoning, planning and development committee. Councilman Ralph Figy, chairman of the ZPD, said the planning board sought to codify its practice of granting exceptions to allow electronic bulletin boards in municipal buildings; update the ordinance to address types of signs not contemplated when it was drafted; and clarify language giving entitlement status to electronic signs in Commercial A, Commercial B, and Industrial zones.

Figy said the feeling among the committee was that few municipal facilities would be affected by the new wording, since most are located in commercial zones, but that the changes would impact schools, such as Munger Hill Elementary, which are located in residential areas. .

Councilor James Adams said he opposed changing the rules to allow billboards to be posted in certain areas without planning board oversight.

“I think we should always look at each one individually, take one sign at a time,” he said.

Councilors Brent Bean and Cindy Harris agreed.

“The Planning Board should continue what they are doing on an individual basis. I don’t think at this time it’s right to call a municipal election,” Harris said.

“We have already opened the door to the Town Hall, which worries me. We’re opening a can of worms,” Bean said.

Earlier this month, the Planning Board approved a special permit for an LED billboard in front of City Hall on Court Street, provided that the sign’s colors be dimmed, the lights dimmed at night and the messages do not change. more than once every 60 seconds. The planning board also required a review of its decision 60 days after the sign was installed, which should happen by winter.

Councilor Karen Fanion, a member of the ZPD, said the committee discussed municipal facilities and that schools in residential neighborhoods would be most affected by changes that would allow similar digital displays. She said that while the signs would be permitted as of right, they would still require site plan approval. Under the current ordinance, electronic signs require not only site plan approval, but also a special permit.

Councilwoman Kristen Mello said she has seen dozens of residents come before the planning board to oppose permitted developments.

” No I can not. We have a map full of hundreds of places where light is shining into people’s homes, and we’re not doing anything about it,” she said.

Another “no” voter, Councilman Michael Burns, said he was part of an advisory committee at Westfield State University, which he said has these flashing signs. When he asked if they would be used to announce an upcoming event, he was told that no one was watching them; they are just a distraction.

Burns said a request for a sign ordinance is not submitted to the city council, “it’s submitted to the planning board.” We’re just changing it for the Planning Board to make the decision,” he said.

Councilor Dan Allie also raised a concern about light pollution in the city.

“We had a lot of people here, amazing presentations. We are already struggling with light pollution. We need to get back to it – we need to fix the lighting ordinance we have. I’m going to be no on that,” he said.

Figy said the lighting ordinance and the sign ordinance are two separate things and the lighting ordinance doesn’t deal with signs at all.

The vote was 2 for and 11 against, with only Fanion and Figy voting yes.